SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240461. September 3, 2018.]
ENRIQUE G. LOCSIN, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DIVISION, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SACP CHRISTOPHER C. GARVIDA, ACP JESUS C. LABRIAGA, JR., FRANCISCO PACIFICO A.K.A. FRANK PACIFICO AND LUZ PACIFICO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 September 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240461 — Enrique G. Locsin versus Court of Appeals Thirteenth Division, Secretary of the Department of Justice, SACP Christopher C. Garvida, ACP Jesus C. Labriaga, Jr., Francisco Pacifico a.k.a. Frank Pacifico and Luz Pacifico
The Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated March 27, 2018 1 and June 25, 2018 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154862.
The Petition must be dismissed outright for being a wrong remedy, considering that the judgments, final orders and resolutions of the Court of Appeals may only be reviewed by the Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Court, however, has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 petition for certiorari as a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. This is allowed if (1) the petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. 3
In this case, even if the Court were to treat the instant Petition as a Rule 45 petition, the Petition is still bereft of merit.
The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function, 4 lodged in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation 5 on the offended party's complaint. 6 The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the Secretary of Justice 7 (Secretary) who, as the final determinative authority on the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor's determination. 8 As a rule, the Secretary's findings are not subject to interference by the courts, 9 save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; 10 or when he grossly misapprehends facts; 11 or acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law; or when he acts outside the contemplation of law. 12
Contrary to Enrique Locsin's allegations, the Court finds that the subject Petition does not fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 37-39. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
2.Id. at 28-35.
3.China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, 642 Phil. 308, 322 (2010), citing Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, 575 Phil. 384, 403 (2008).
4.Villanueva v. Caparas, 702 Phil. 609, 615 (2013), citing Torres, Jr. v. Spouses Drs. Aguinaldo, 500 Phil. 365, 375 (2005); and Leviste v. Alameda, 640 Phil. 620, 647-648 (2010).
5.Id. at 615, citing Bernardo v. Tan, 690 Phil. 640, 650 (2012) and Section 1, Rule 112 of the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
6.Id., citing United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, 560 Phil. 581, 591 (2007).
7.Id., citing Ang-Abaya v. Ang, 593 Phil. 530, 541-542 (2008); United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, id. at 591; and 2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL, DOJ Department Circular No. 70, July 3, 2000.
8.Id., citing PCGG Chairman Elma v. Jacobi, 689 Phil. 307 (2012).
9.Id., citing Baltazar v. People, 582 Phil. 275 (2008); Chan v. Secretary of Justice, 572 Phil. 118, 130 (2008); United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, supra note 6, at 591; PCGG Chairman Elma v. Jacobi, id.
10.Id. at 615-616, citing Torres, Jr. v. Spouses Drs. Aguinaldo, supra note 4, at 376; Chan v. Secretary of Justice, id. at 130-131; United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, id.
11.Id. at 616, citing United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, id. at 592; Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Gonzales, 602 Phil. 1000, 1009-1010 (2009).
12.Id., citing Spouses Aduan v. Chong, 610 Phil. 178, 185 (2009).